Thinking about: 4G Warfare as applied to non-military areas

Any relationship that is not consensual must, perforce, be coercive. It exists because the parties want it to exist, or because it has to exist on pain of pain.

The nature and structures of coercive relationships are as manifold as can be – all the way from simple emotional “guilting,” up through “continuing the floggings until morale improves” all the way until perfectly credible “do it or I’ll kill you.” But this is not to say that coercive relationships start out at the maximum level. Coercive relationships are nothing more than war between two or more individuals, a contest of wills – or abilities – and, as such, are subject to the same analysis as any other war-related activities when it comes to determining which generation of war is being fought.

For instance, the losers in an election are told that they “have to take it, because they lost.” Torocaca. Winning doesn’t make you right, it just means you get your way. Nor does participation in a vote create any consent in the results on the part of the loser, any more than losing a war creates consent. It simply creates a losing side that does not wish to be injured any more.

But assertions that losers are stuck with the results are a perfect example of a 2G warfare mindset. The British Redcoats whined about American riflemen shooting from behind rocks and trees instead of lining up in neat rows. Tough kibble. There’s no rule that says a side is obligated to fight the same style of war as the other, and there’s no penalty for being “unfair” in war. Likewise the winners of elections who say that the other side has to live with the results – true, but only so far as the other side accepts. If the losers mount a “guerilla” action of, say, slowdowns, noncompliance, or out and out defiance, it can certainly bump things back into armed conflict (also known as “calling the police or National Guard”) initiated by the winners, but that can, as regimes have found over the years, backfire dramatically when the police and troops decide that maybe they’re better off with the “losers.”

One interesting facet of 4G warfare, as applied to non-military areas, is that individuals and groups in power often, after time, take that power for granted, and forget that such power ultimately rests on nothing more than forbearance, rather than consent, of the other side to not take remedial action. Civil wars are messy, nasty, but are often the end result of one side forgetting the lessons that history teaches.

Disclaimer

My blog posts and comments are nothing more than the ramblings of just another guy, ya know? They are only personal opinions, observations, and discussion - I specifically do NOT give legal advice to the public, in general, in public and NOTHING said herein should be construed as legal advice to you. Consult your own darned attorney before doing anything that could result in criminal or civil liability to you. Or consult him in general just before breakfast - he'll have less work then and will be thankful for the extra billables.

*if I am, then you already know how to get ahold of me, and it's not in a public forum.